Lawyers representing former and current college football and men's basketball players in an anti-trust lawsuit said in a document filed Thursday that the NCAA, video game manufacturer Electronic Arts and the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co., "worked together to affirmatively mislead the public" and college athletes "about the lengths EA went to model" videogame avatars after real players.

The plaintiffs' lawyers also wrote: "There is a wealth of common evidence from Defendants' own documents and testimony that will be used to show, on a common basis, that EA, CLC and the NCAA colluded to use former and current" athletes' names, images and likenesses "in their videogames without compensation."

Specifics backing for those claims were redacted from the document, as were several supporting exhibits. But the document does include several specific citations from documents the plaintiffs obtained from the NCAA.

Citing an e-mail written in 2005 by former NCAA membership services staffer Bo Kerin, the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote that NCAA administrators had noted "real concern" within the NCAA that use of athletes' images in videogames "adds to the argument that student-athletes should be unionized and receive a cut of the profits, etc." The document also says Peter Davis, "the former NCAA Director of Corporate Alliances, admitted that there are 'likenesses of student-athletes' " in a videogame produced by EA.

The suit, in a federal court in California, seeks damages from the NCAA, EA and CLC. The named plaintiffs, including former basketball stars Ed O'Bannon, Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell, say their names, images and likenesses were used illegally by the NCAA.

They allege that the defendants violated anti-trust law by conspiring to fix at zero the amount of compensation athletes can receive for the use of their names, images and likenesses in products or media while they are in school and by requiring athletes to sign forms under which they allegedly relinquish in perpetuity all rights pertaining to the use of their names, images and likenesses in ways including TV contracts, rebroadcasts of games, and video game, jersey and other apparel sales.

Thursday's filing was made in connection with ongoing arguments about whether the case should be certified as a class action. Such a ruling likely would bring thousands of current and former college athletes into the case and potentially place billions of dollars in damages at stake. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken is scheduled to hold a hearing on the issue June 20.

The specifics about the alleged use of athletes' likenesses in videogames were made as part of the plaintiffs' effort to counter arguments from EA and CLC that the companies should be excluded from the case.

The NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy said in a statement Thursday night: "While the NCAA is still reviewing this filing, it appears to be more of the same -- baseless theories supported only by inaccurate speculation aimed at destroying amateurism in college athletics. ... [T]he plaintiffs take out of context quotes and statements from representatives of member conferences and institutions, and even NCAA officials, and attempt to weave them together to support their faulty theory. ...

"The fact remains -- the NCAA is not exploiting current or former student-athletes but instead provides enormous benefit to them and the public. Plaintiffs are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. The NCAA remains hopeful the court will agree and deny this motion."

One e-mail included among the supporting exhibits to the plaintiffs' document shows former NCAA president Myles Brand, now deceased, expressing his frustration about the NCAA's need to grapple with the entire issue of commercializing college athletes.

In a September 2008 e-mail exchange with NCAA executive David Berst, Brand wrote: " ... I have come to believe that the problems we are having with commercial activity are rooted in institutional expenditure rates. It is primarily because of the need for additional revenue that institutions — and the national office — are seeking ways to commercialize their rights, and those of (student-athletes). If expenditure rates had only increased at the (Consumer Price Index) for the past two decades, we would not be having this discussion."

Instead, e-mails filed by the plaintiffs indicate that NCAA officials were working with CLC and EA officials concerning the NCAA rules-making related to allowable uses of athletes' names and likenesses.

One such exchange in February 2007 involved EA's Joel Linzner complaining to CLC's Pat Battle, who then asks NCAA executive Greg Shaheen for advice on "how you thought I should respond to Joel."

Shaheen wrote to Battle, in part: "Re: the S/A likeness, this will come in stages, we suspect. We're trying to determine the best strategy to get it all passed over the next two legislative cycles. The current take is that we need to do this first phase and then go back for photos and video games in the next phase. The read is that if we lump it all together, it will become loaded down and be killed."

Battle's reply to Shaheen included the following: "I will tell Joel just to hold off and that we have things under control working behind the scenes."

The potential pitfalls of athletes' likenesses being used in videogames was apparent to NCAA staffers two years earlier, according to another exhibit submitted by the plaintiffs.

In an e-mail in August 2005 to NCAA executive Kevin Lennon, NCAA governance staffer Steve Mallonee wrote " ... since our current rules/interpretations only preclude the actual use of the (student-athlete's) name, picture or physical likeness in commercial promotions/activities, these computerized video games are basically allowed to do what they are doing. The jersey number along with the position and vital statistics is clearly an attempt to have the public make the association with the current student-athlete. And it appears to be working. The Best Damn Sports Show was aired several weeks ago and had (Southern California football players) Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush acknowledging that they were in the video game."

Continuing and then referring to a newspaper story, Mallonee wrote: "That then raises the issue of whether getting in line with technology means being more restrictive or lenient with our rules. The article would imply that we might relax our rules a bit. The biggest concern I have is that such a position really does allow for the maximum commercial exploitation of the (student-athlete) and if that occurs, will it be long before we can defend not giving them a piece of the profits?"